What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

FAA policy on training in experimental aircraft

Status
Not open for further replies.
There was a short period of time in the late 70's when the BFR could be done in a single sear airplane with CFI observing from ground. I did at least one in my single seat Pitts.
Warbird "check rides" in single seat airplanes are still done that way.
In the Bob Buck era of the 30's all or part of a Private Pilot check ride was don with the CAA official observing from the ground.

Jim,

I petitioned my local FSDO some years back that all I flew were single seaters and the -4 rarely had anyone in the back seat unless it was my wife. All daylight and no IFR unless it's roads, railroads or rivers. No dice, but they did agree to let me do acro practice overhead my field provided I made announcements in the blind and co-ordinated with the sky divers before they entered the drop zone. So far that has gone well and for that I'll drone along for an hour every two years in a spam can.

Cheers, Hans
 
BFR

The real issue with me is do I need to spend $300 plus for a 172 considering my VERY LIMITED fixed income. Cost for my EAB would be $40.
I have been flying the 172 since the early 60's. Tern years in between 172 flights? no problem. Beech 18 no problem. Landing a Pitts would be a problem after 20 plus years away from my all time favorite airplane.
 
Jeppeson

Hans-
Long ago I took the liberty of modifying Mr. Jeppeson's words: A pilot is a technicion operating a machine. A airman is a artist whose canvas is the sky and whose brush is an airplane.
The one question test to determine artist vs pilot is "Who was Wolfgang Langwiesche?"
 
Mr. Wolfgang

In the late 60's I was flying scheduled service from Princeton NJ to NY. Early one morning My only passenger was Mr. Wolfgang. I wanted his autograph but did not ask. I learned much later he was a very private person. At the time he had a 182 based at Princeton.
I always thought he had some connection to the university. By that time he was apparently writing for a living.
During WWII he was a ground school instructor for Hawthorne. Later a production test pilot for the F4 Corsair. Quite a large step from a J2 to the Corsair.
I have a copy of his log page from his late 30's flight from NJ to Key West in a J2 Cub.
I'll Take The High Road preceded Stick and Rudder. It was my inspiration before I started flying. i still have a copy.
Wolfgang, Leighton and Richard Collins and Bob Buck were all in that area in late 60's, Buck was on the PA side.
So the airline captain who doesn't know who Wolfgang was is just a pilot while the one who answers correctly is an aviator.
 
Regretfully, my old yellowed and dog eared Stick and Rudder was lost in a move 22 years ago. Fortunately an old copy of "Fate is the Hunter" is still with me and partially responsible for my career selection. I wanted to be a WW2 fighter pilot but took an airline career instead. The RV4 filled the need for the more dynamic flying and will be with me till I can't hoist myself in and out of the cockpit.

Cheers,

Hans
 
Books

My all time favorite is North Star Over My Shoulder by Bob Buck. From primary glider, self taught instrument pilot with just a turn and bank, Private Pilot at age 16, yes age sixteen, to the 747. Just an incredible book.
 
The policy is clear that both need a loda, but contradictory on the wording of this point, stating that only one or the other needs to have one, and expect they will clarify it in the near term.

Larry

The bottom of the EAA article now has this correction: This story was updated to reflect that either the owner/operator of the aircraft or instructor can have the LODA, as long as one person in the cockpit has one.
 
The real issue with me is do I need to spend $300 plus for a 172 considering my VERY LIMITED fixed income. Cost for my EAB would be $40.

A little off topic, but I would be willing to bet a tank of 100LL that your operating expenses (Which include hangar/tiedown condition inspection, oil, tires, insurance, maintenance, overhaul reserve, MMO etc) for your EAB would make your cost WAY more than the $40. you think an hour of flight time cost... :eek:

-Marc
 
Last edited:
Cost

My accounting is very different. Oil is $1.67 hour, I do my own maintenence, hangar is used for other purposes, condition inspection I don't charge myself for, I don't expect to live long enough to consider TBO, my tires last a long time, etc. My immediate out of pocket expense would be the cost of one hour fuel for BFR vs 300 plus for 172. I think the 172 in 2015 was $400. The lady who did that BFR died 3 months later in a 182 with a friend and former student flying. I drive by her former hangar every day.
 
In FAA-2021-0592]Please apply for LODA's as soon as that link is operative and let's let the FAA wake up Monday to a tsunami of applications.
EAA is encouraging pilots to wait until they need it before applying in order to avoid a backlog. But how long do we expect it to take for a LODA to be issued? I would expect most folks to be looking to get any required paperwork as soon as they can in order to avoid gaps in currency / proficiency. So with or without a protest "tsunami", a flood of applications seems inevitable.
 
I worked with other groups for several years to convince the FAA to allow safety pilots in EAB aircraft during Flight Test. The result of much arm wrestling was AC 90-116, which was responsible for the accident rate during Phase 1 to fall measurably! Now this idiotic interpretation defies all logic, as instruction in the type of aircraft to be flown is paramount to safety. Can one imagine if the airline I flew for only allowed us to take a proficiency check in a Cessna 150?
Sooo, squeaky wheel gets the grease, let the alphabet groups know your thoughts, I hate to see the improvements on EAB safety reverse themselves!

DAR Gary
 
FAA

The FAA at the FSDO level is famous for telling people how overworked and understaffed they are. Surely this will fix that problem.
 
Safety

It will be interesting (not in a good way) to see if there is a spike in E-AB accidents around this time. It seems inevitable given that there will be a period, however temporary, when timely E-AB instruction will be more difficult to get.
 
FAA policy on training.........

I tried to open the web site to apply for the LODA so I can keep giving to my new partner training before the LODA logjam hits. I am still waiting on the new registration submitted the first of the year. The site will not respond on my computer, anyone else get thru? Dan from Reno
 
I tried to open the web site to apply for the LODA so I can keep giving to my new partner training before the LODA logjam hits. I am still waiting on the new registration submitted the first of the year. The site will not respond on my computer, anyone else get thru? Dan from Reno

Web site? I only saw an email address, where you request the LODA.
Are you charging for this instruction? If no, then no LODA is needed.
 
I worked with other groups for several years to convince the FAA to allow safety pilots in EAB aircraft during Flight Test. The result of much arm wrestling was AC 90-116, which was responsible for the accident rate during Phase 1 to fall measurably! Now this idiotic interpretation defies all logic, as instruction in the type of aircraft to be flown is paramount to safety. Can one imagine if the airline I flew for only allowed us to take a proficiency check in a Cessna 150?
Sooo, squeaky wheel gets the grease, let the alphabet groups know your thoughts, I hate to see the improvements on EAB safety reverse themselves!

DAR Gary
Just more inconsistency from the FAA. AC 90-116 makes no mention of of needing a LODA, but you can use a safety pilot. Do you need a LODA to hire someone for the first flight in your homebuilt. This in no way improves safety.
 
My thought process is different than the EAA on this. I think every owner of an experimental aircraft should apply for a LODA before Monday morning. Maybe if the e-mail box for LODA's has so many e-mails that they can't even think about opening them all, they may realize how stupid this whole thing is.

An issue that I have not seen addressed is check rides in experimental aircraft. I know there is a regulation that says the examiner is not PIC during a check ride. But a CFI can give instruction and do flight reviews without being PIC. So if a CFI is doing a flight review for a pilot who is legal to fly the airplane as PIC, then I really don't understand how the CFI is operating the aircraft. During a flight review with a competent, current pilot, I basically sit there and tell him what maneuvers to perform. I evaluate whether the flying is acceptable according to the applicable standards.

I don't see where that is much different than an examiner during a check ride. So will the examiner need a LODA? And taking it a step further, if an FAA employee is giving a check ride, will he need a LODA? While the FAA employee does not charge for check rides (when they give them), they are getting paid by the government so that could be considered compensation.

The FAA has opened a can or worms. The EAA, AOPA, and kit manufacturers need to be on this like stink on a skunk. A full out frontal attack is needed immediately.
 
My thought process is different than the EAA on this. I think every owner of an experimental aircraft should apply for a LODA before Monday morning. Maybe if the e-mail box for LODA's has so many e-mails that they can't even think about opening them all, they may realize how stupid this whole thing is.

An issue that I have not seen addressed is check rides in experimental aircraft. I know there is a regulation that says the examiner is not PIC during a check ride. But a CFI can give instruction and do flight reviews without being PIC. So if a CFI is doing a flight review for a pilot who is legal to fly the airplane as PIC, then I really don't understand how the CFI is operating the aircraft. During a flight review with a competent, current pilot, I basically sit there and tell him what maneuvers to perform. I evaluate whether the flying is acceptable according to the applicable standards.

I don't see where that is much different than an examiner during a check ride. So will the examiner need a LODA? And taking it a step further, if an FAA employee is giving a check ride, will he need a LODA? While the FAA employee does not charge for check rides (when they give them), they are getting paid by the government so that could be considered compensation.

The FAA has opened a can or worms. The EAA, AOPA, and kit manufacturers need to be on this like stink on a skunk. A full out frontal attack is needed immediately.


I agree……

I’m fortunate in that many of the examiners around here are willing to do checkrides in EAB aircraft. I did investigate when I was thinking about getting my commercial rating in my RV-10. With that said, forcing an examiner to get a LODA might dwindle the numbers of those willing due to the extra bureaucracy.

Although, if I remember correctly, only one LODA was required. Either one for the aircraft/owner or the CFI. My submission will be waiting for them on Monday.

The next few weeks will be interesting. Anyone want to guess what the questions will be like for the usual “Meet the FAA Administrator” session at OSH? :D
 
EAA is encouraging pilots to wait until they need it before applying in order to avoid a backlog. But how long do we expect it to take for a LODA to be issued? I would expect most folks to be looking to get any required paperwork as soon as they can in order to avoid gaps in currency / proficiency. So with or without a protest "tsunami", a flood of applications seems inevitable.

How long? Just ask the guys waiting on a deferred medical, or go ask a guy who tried to obtain a permit for a suppressor or SBR from the ATF. The government has never cared about being speedy or efficient in anything regarding services they must perform for you. Situation swapped on the other hand……
 
Just in from EAA: https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-pu...imental-primary-and-limited-category-aircraft

OK, the comments are starting to roll in, just please remember the rules about civility MJS

I guess I'm the oddball. While it infuriates owners by putting a limit on what can be done with an experimental, it makes perfect sense when it comes to safety.
Experimental phase testing doesn't come anywhere close to the costly procedure that certified aircraft go thru. There is no quality control and the aircraft are not standardized. There's no guarantee the builder even followed the instructions properly or intentionally cut corners.
It would actually be negligent on the FAA's part to allow a school trying to cut corners to build and then rent uncertified aircraft for training or rental. Even worse to buy an experimental from someone and then put it into circulation for use.. It also would be negligent for the FAA to look away while uncertified aircraft be used for compensation of various other means.
Usually these things come about as a reaction to a situation that has occurred. Anyone familiar with the FAA knows that is usually the catalyst of why an action is taken.
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm the oddball. While it infuriates owners by putting a limit on what can be done with an experimental, it makes perfect sense when it comes to safety.
Experimental phase testing doesn't come anywhere close to the costly procedure that certified aircraft go thru. There is no quality control and the aircraft are not standardized. There's no guarantee the builder even followed the instructions properly or intentionally cut corners.
It would actually be negligent on the FAA's part to allow a school trying to cut corners to build and then rent uncertified aircraft for training or rental. Even worse to buy an experimental from someone and then put it into circulation for use.. It also would be negligent for the FAA to look away while uncertified aircraft be used for compensation of various other means.
Usually these things come about as a reaction to a situation that has occurred. Anyone familiar with the FAA knows that is usually the catalyst of why an action is taken.

You’re missing the point. Nobody is talking about using an EAB in a flight school, it’s about someone who owns an EAB, and wants to learn how to fly it, perhaps get their instrument rating in it, or even receive a biennial flight review in their own plane. The new ruling even seems to classify all flight training as commercial use, requiring flight schools to put their trainer planes into a 135 certificate! This is crazy that the faa ruled the way that they did without thinking about the consequences of their actions just trying to squeeze out the P40 in Florida..
 
This is crazy that the faa ruled the way that they did without thinking about the consequences of their actions just trying to squeeze out the P40 in Florida..

I also agree that the FAA knows this is 99% counter productive and why they added the easy LODA option, but really wanted to win it's battle against that warbird operation and similar operators. The myopic thinking here is quite staggering.

Larry
 
How long? Just ask the guys waiting on a deferred medical, or go ask a guy who tried to obtain a permit for a suppressor or SBR from the ATF. The government has never cared about being speedy or efficient in anything regarding services they must perform for you. Situation swapped on the other hand……

While I don't expect anyone to follow the guidance, they stated it because they knew everyone would apply immediately regardless of need. There are guys like me that are in the middle of a training cycle (son is getting PPL in our 6A) and immediately impacted (they gave us 4 days notice). Their process doesn't allow them to understand the timing of the need, so asked those without an immediate need to wait in order to allow those with immediate needs to get serviced. I expect the mailbox already has thousands of requests and have no hope of getting a LODA before my son goes back to school in August.
 
Last edited:
You’re missing the point. Nobody is talking about using an EAB in a flight school, it’s about someone who owns an EAB, and wants to learn how to fly it, perhaps get their instrument rating in it, or even receive a biennial flight review in their own plane. The new ruling even seems to classify all flight training as commercial use, requiring flight schools to put their trainer planes into a 135 certificate! This is crazy that the faa ruled the way that they did without thinking about the consequences of their actions just trying to squeeze out the P40 in Florida..

You don't see loopholes in that? I used schools as the ultimate example but I think it's relevant to anyone trying to conduct training that you're asking the FAA to supply a certificate once done.
If the FAA allowed training in an experimental which will result in a license, endorsement or type rating why even have an experimental category?
Doesn't make sense to me that the FAA would give a blessing like that to a loose collection of aircraft. I don't mean that in a derogatory way but that's essentially what experimentals are.
Then there's the issue of intentionally not knowing where the line is.
 
Last edited:
While I don't expect anyone to follow the guidance, they stated it because they knew everyone would apply immediately regardless of need. There are guys like me that are in the middle of a training cycle (son is getting PPL in our 6A) and immediately impacted (they gave us 4 days notice). Their process doesn't allow them to understand the timing of the need, so asked those without an immediate need to wait in order to allow those with immediate needs to get serviced. I expect the mailbox already has thousands of requests and have no hope of getting a LODA before my son goes back to school in August.

Insurance or an overzealous check ride examiner come to mind...Roll the dice...
 
You don't see loopholes in that? I used schools as the ultimate example but I think it's relevant to anyone trying to conduct training that you're asking the FAA to supply a certificate once done.
If the FAA allowed training in an experimental which will result in a license, endorsement or type rating why even have an experimental category?
Doesn't make sense to me that the FAA would give a blessing like that to a loose collection of aircraft. I don't mean that in a derogatory way but that's essentially what experimentals are.
Then there's the issue of intentionally not knowing where the line is.

I have an E-LSA that I own. I have several CFIs who are also Experimental owners and pilots, and are willing to give training and perform flight reviews in an E-AB or E-LSA. Where's the problem here? Everyone knows exactly what they're getting into, literally. CFIs are free to choose whether they will or will not fly in Experimental aircraft.

Extending it further... there are three of us who share ownership in the aforementioned E-LSA. One of us gets a CFI certificate, and wants to give the other two flight reviews every couple of years. Again, where exactly is the issue here?
 
I have an E-LSA that I own. I have several CFIs who are also Experimental owners and pilots, and are willing to give training and perform flight reviews in an E-AB or E-LSA. Where's the problem here? Everyone knows exactly what they're getting into, literally. CFIs are free to choose whether they will or will not fly in Experimental aircraft.

Extending it further... there are three of us who share ownership in the aforementioned E-LSA. One of us gets a CFI certificate, and wants to give the other two flight reviews every couple of years. Again, where exactly is the issue here?

You got a big 10-4 from your insurance company?
 
You got a big 10-4 from your insurance company?

Insurance is not required for flight, that's a personal choice.

There is a big difference between a private company choosing not to do business with a potential client (insurance refusing coverage) and the government telling me I can't do it.

I got my instrument rating in my 9A a few years ago with a local instructor, specifically because it was in my best interest to know my equipment in my airplane backwards and forwards and be able to operate it proficiently. Renting a 172 with a different panel for that training only teaches me how to do it in the 172 with that equipment - it does nothing to enhance safety in the airplane I fly every day.
 
Insurance is not required for flight, that's a personal choice.

There is a big difference between a private company choosing not to do business with a potential client (insurance refusing coverage) and the government telling me I can't do it.

I got my instrument rating in my 9A a few years ago with a local instructor, specifically because it was in my best interest to know my equipment in my airplane backwards and forwards and be able to operate it proficiently. Renting a 172 with a different panel for that training only teaches me how to do it in the 172 with that equipment - it does nothing to enhance safety in the airplane I fly every day.

The 1st line tells me what I need to know.
Good luck in your endeavors!
 
You got a big 10-4 from your insurance company?
Absolutely. Why would they object? In fact, one of the three of us was added to the policy as a part owner while he was still a student pilot. He did the last part of his primary training, all of his solo hours, AND took his check ride in the airplane. The insurance company was perfectly fine with it; the CFI was fine with it; the DPE was fine with it. I've had several hours of dual instruction and three flight reviews in the thing, before this ludicrous new policy popped up.
 
I guess I'm the oddball. While it infuriates owners by putting a limit on what can be done with an experimental, it makes perfect sense when it comes to safety.
Experimental phase testing doesn't come anywhere close to the costly procedure that certified aircraft go thru. There is no quality control and the aircraft are not standardized. There's no guarantee the builder even followed the instructions properly or intentionally cut corners.
It would actually be negligent on the FAA's part to allow a school trying to cut corners to build and then rent uncertified aircraft for training or rental. Even worse to buy an experimental from someone and then put it into circulation for use.. It also would be negligent for the FAA to look away while uncertified aircraft be used for compensation of various other means.
Usually these things come about as a reaction to a situation that has occurred. Anyone familiar with the FAA knows that is usually the catalyst of why an action is taken.

Wait a minute. You are conflating aircraft certification with pilot certification, ratings, and proficiency. The two are vastly different. When I train for a new rating in my RV-7, I am developing and maintaining a particular skill set. When I go find a DPE to evaluate my skills and sign off my new rating, I'm not asking him to certificate the aircraft I used to develop the required skill set.

I understand that there are many pilot examiners and instructors who choose not to give checkrides or training in experimental aircraft. That is their right, and that is why the requisite placards are there. (I'm "just" a pilot, and I won't fly in any Light GA aircraft that I haven't at least had the opportunity to walk around and take a close look at, unless I know the folks who maintain it. I might even ask to see the books.)

The idea that I should be precluded from training to a new set of skills in an airplane I own, and in which I intend to use those skills is asinine. If the airplane is equipped as required, and otherwise maintained and operated within the applicable FARs, as an owner, I should be able to use it for training. In fact, doing so is a logical requirement of safety.

...and yes, this did all come about as the result of one for profit Warbird operation using the training loophole to offer joyrides. If you are unfamiliar with that case, perhaps you should become so before making broad generalizations like suggesting that pilot certification and aircraft certification are remotely the same thing.

The school scenario you imagine is not really the issue at hand. It's you extending the discussion so that you can convince yourself that you have a point to make.

Personally, as someone who is engaged in some additional training at the moment, I've applied for an owner LODA under the new rule, and I am going to be patient and see how it all works.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess I'm the oddball. While it infuriates owners by putting a limit on what can be done with an experimental, it makes perfect sense when it comes to safety.
Experimental phase testing doesn't come anywhere close to the costly procedure that certified aircraft go thru. There is no quality control and the aircraft are not standardized. There's no guarantee the builder even followed the instructions properly or intentionally cut corners.
It would actually be negligent on the FAA's part to allow a school trying to cut corners to build and then rent uncertified aircraft for training or rental. Even worse to buy an experimental from someone and then put it into circulation for use.. It also would be negligent for the FAA to look away while uncertified aircraft be used for compensation of various other means.
Usually these things come about as a reaction to a situation that has occurred. Anyone familiar with the FAA knows that is usually the catalyst of why an action is taken.

It might interest you to know that flight schools using RV-12s must use aircraft built using an approved builder process. Moreover, if I choose to apply for and am granted a LODA to offer my RV for rent as part of a transition training course, it moves my airplane out of the experimental category as far as owner maintenance is concerned and is now required to have maintenance done in the same manner as certified aircraft, by an A&P. There is more oversight involved than just grabbing any plane off of barnstormers.com and putting on line at a flight school.
Regardless, it is a completely separate issue from what's at stake here now.
 
Wait a minute. You are conflating aircraft certification with pilot certification, ratings, and proficiency. The two are vastly different. When I train for a new rating in my RV-7, I am developing and maintaining a particular skill set. When I go find a DPE to evaluate my skills and sign off my new rating, I'm not asking him to certificate the aircraft I used to develop the required skill set.

I understand that there are many pilot examiners and instructors who choose not to give checkrides or training in experimental aircraft. That is their right, and that is why the requisite placards are there. (I'm "just" a pilot, and I won't fly in any Light GA aircraft that I haven't at least had the opportunity to walk around and take a close look at, unless I know the folks who maintain it. I might even ask to see the books.)

The idea that I should be precluded from training to a new set of skills in an airplane I own, and in which I intend to use those skills is asinine. If the airplane is equipped as required, and otherwise maintained and operated within the applicable FARs, as an owner, I should be able to use it for training. In fact, doing so is a logical requirement of safety.

...and yes, this did all come about as the result of one for profit Warbird operation using the training loophole to offer joyrides. If you are unfamiliar with that case, perhaps you should become so before making broad generalizations like suggesting that pilot certification and aircraft certification are remotely the same thing.

The school scenario you imagine is not really the issue at hand. It's you extending the discussion so that you can convince yourself that you have a point to make.

Personally, as someone who is engaged in some additional training at the moment, I've applied for an owner LODA under the new rule, and I am going to be patient and see how it all works.

I'll abide buy VAF rules and request that you do also.
The case involving Warbird wasn't about a joyride. They were actually providing training. That sounds like a school scenario to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll abide buy VAF rules and request that you do also.

Point taken. My post has been edited accordingly.

The case involving Warbird wasn't about a joyride. They were actually providing training. That sounds like a school scenario to me.

If they were actually offering transition training, they'd have simply continued to operate under the existing LODA system that allowed them to do so, but they were abusing it, and offering joy rides for compensation, (read "profit"), and calling it training. How many airworthy P-40 Warhawks are out there? I'd be surprised if there are more than a few dozen flying examples, and maybe 25 in the U.S., the vast majority of which are in the hands of museums. Do you think Warbird Adventures actually maintained and advertised training program for the handful of pilots out there who actually fly them? Remember, this particular airplane had a limited category airworthiness certificate issued to operate surplus military aircraft that have been converted to civilian use. This is not new. The infamous Dave Riggs was doing exactly this in the 1990s with an L-39. He ended up killing a customer. (Incidentally, he killed himself several years later in a Lancair. I happen to have a couple of hours in the L-39 that remained after he died.)

In any case, pilot certification and aircraft certification are not the same thing.
 
Last edited:
I'll abide buy VAF rules and request that you do also.
The case involving Warbird wasn't about a joyride. They were actually providing training. That sounds like a school scenario to me.

I think this is getting off track. Under the ‘old interpretation’ of ‘not for compensation or hire’, the owner/operator could not be paid, but a cfi could be paid to instruct in it. There is no way Warbird was providing its P40 for free. It was a sham, and the faa called them on it. But I don’t think the faa ever thought a judge would go further, and say that the regs say, ‘No one (cfi, examiner) on board can be paid’.
 
I think this is getting off track. Under the ‘old interpretation’ of ‘not for compensation or hire’, the owner/operator could not be paid, but a cfi could be paid to instruct in it. There is no way Warbird was providing its P40 for free. It was a sham, and the faa called them on it. But I don’t think the faa ever thought a judge would go further, and say that the regs say, ‘No one (cfi, examiner) on board can be paid’.

...and excellent point. Thanks.
 
Point taken. My post has been edited accordingly.



No, they were not. That's how we "got here" in the first place. If they were actually offering transition training, they'd have simply continued to operate under the existing LODA system that allowed them to do so, but they were abusing it, and offering joy rides for compensation, (read "profit"), and calling it training. This is not new. The infamous Dave Riggs was doing exactly this in the 1990s with an L-39. He ended up killing a customer. (Incidentally, he killed himself several years later in a Lancair. I happen to have a couple of hours in the L-39 that remained after he died.)

In any case, pilot certification and aircraft certification are not the same thing.

The FAA won the case because it was a school providing training. As I stated earlier. When the FAA comes out with something in this fashion it's usually a response to something that has taken place. It's all in black & white.
Look up FAA vs Warbird...

LOL...Pilot certification and aircraft certification are not the same thing. I figured that decades ago. The 1st word gave it away.
 
Last edited:
I’m not a lawyer, but now I’m wondering if this mess has wider implications. If paying a cfi for personal instruction equates to ‘using the airplane for compensation’, won’t every single 172 owner who pays for instruction now be required to have 100 hour inspections (just like an FBO)?
 
I’m not a lawyer, but now I’m wondering if this mess has wider implications. If paying a cfi for personal instruction equates to ‘using the airplane for compensation’, won’t every single 172 owner who pays for instruction now be required to have 100 hour inspections (just like an FBO)?

If someone asks the FAA for an interpretation of the above, they likely have no choice but to issue a policy stating that they are now requied. If not, they leave themselves wide open to lose courts cases based upon them not following a universal set of interpretations. The courts won't let them have one interpretation of the rule for this and another one for that. Defense attorneys would eat their lunch, if they did. If an EAB is excluded due to training being compensation, the same rule will have to apply to certified as well. Maybe they'll just issue antoher 10,000 LODA's for them to get around the 100 hr inspection:rolleyes:. The next logical hornets nest is that this will likely lead to CFI's requiring class II medicals. Given that the CFI is now considered as being compensated for hire, he can no longer opereate on a Class III or basic med, per the regs. Again, the FAA can't have it both ways. Up until last week, training was not interpreted as compensation for hire. Now that it is, MANY things related to instructing will have to change, unless the FAA walks this back. The list of consequences of this is somewhat large. I have a feeling that the FAA didn't really think this through and doesn't realize the extent of the potential mess. The sad part is that the judges opinion was unpublished and therefore the FAA didn't need to follow it. I believe that only published opinions set precedence. From what I have learned about the law, the unpublished opinion allows the judge to provide guidance without setting precedence and only rulings or published opinions set precedence.

Larry
 
Last edited:
People are quick to make the FAA the villain. The real fault lies with the school. They are the one that opened up this mess.

Gary, couplethree questions for you.

Your profile states you work in "Government"-----

Are you with the FAA? And if so;

How high up in the org are you? And lastly;

Any factual inside info you are able to share?
 
People are quick to make the FAA the villain. The real fault lies with the school. They are the one that opened up this mess.

What mess? Didn't you agree with the action based on the potential that the old regs might be abused in all sorts of ways that they were not being abused? I'm not trying to play devil's advocate. I'm just trying to figure out what you actually think.
 
Even though this is a bit off topic I am worried that the next shoe to drop is about all the build assistance. Started out as a good idea of somebody giving advice to a new builder (for compensation) which improved safety overall but has gotten to the point where there are outfits at which the builder mainly watches somebody else putting his/her airplane together for his/her educational purpose (after all watching is educational ….).

Can the regs be interpreted to support that model? Probably.

Was that the original intend of EAB? No.

Very similar to the warbird situation. If that back fires I wonder what the repercussion will be on that.

Oliver
 
Last edited:
Gary, couplethree questions for you.

Your profile states you work in "Government"-----

Are you with the FAA? And if so;

How high up in the org are you? And lastly;

Any factual inside info you are able to share?


You beat me to it Mike........I was just about to ask the same thing.
 
People are quick to make the FAA the villain. The real fault lies with the school. They are the one that opened up this mess.
I agree about FAA being a convenient whipping boy much of the time. But sometimes they really do things that make no sense and this is one of those times. Responding to a problem that was created by a small number of operations by re-interpreting a long-standing rule in a way that adds an unnecessary burden on all of us (and their own employees) is non-sensical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top